netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] mii: Add helpers for parsing SGMII auto-negotiation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:10:25 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, alexandru.marginean@....com,
        claudiu.manoil@....com, xiaoliang.yang_1@....com,
        yangbo.lu@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] mii: Add helpers for parsing SGMII
 auto-negotiation

> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mii.h b/include/uapi/linux/mii.h
> > index 51b48e4be1f2..dc3b5d635beb 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/mii.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mii.h
> > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
> >  /* Advertisement control register. */
> >  #define ADVERTISE_SLCT		0x001f	/* Selector bits               */
> >  #define ADVERTISE_CSMA		0x0001	/* Only selector supported     */
> > +#define ADVERTISE_SGMII		0x0001	/* Can do SGMII                */
> >  #define ADVERTISE_10HALF	0x0020	/* Try for 10mbps half-duplex  */
> >  #define ADVERTISE_1000XFULL	0x0020	/* Try for 1000BASE-X full-duplex */
> >  #define ADVERTISE_10FULL	0x0040	/* Try for 10mbps full-duplex  */
> > @@ -94,6 +95,7 @@
> >  
> >  /* Link partner ability register. */
> >  #define LPA_SLCT		0x001f	/* Same as advertise selector  */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII		0x0001	/* Can do SGMII                */
> >  #define LPA_10HALF		0x0020	/* Can do 10mbps half-duplex   */
> >  #define LPA_1000XFULL		0x0020	/* Can do 1000BASE-X full-duplex */
> >  #define LPA_10FULL		0x0040	/* Can do 10mbps full-duplex   */
> > @@ -104,11 +106,19 @@
> >  #define LPA_1000XPAUSE_ASYM	0x0100	/* Can do 1000BASE-X pause asym*/
> >  #define LPA_100BASE4		0x0200	/* Can do 100mbps 4k packets   */
> >  #define LPA_PAUSE_CAP		0x0400	/* Can pause                   */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_DPX_SPD_MASK	0x1C00	/* SGMII duplex and speed bits */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_10HALF	0x0000	/* Can do SGMII 10mbps half-duplex */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_10FULL	0x1000	/* Can do SGMII 10mbps full-duplex */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_100HALF	0x0400	/* Can do SGMII 100mbps half-duplex */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_100FULL	0x1400	/* Can do SGMII 100mbps full-duplex */
> >  #define LPA_PAUSE_ASYM		0x0800	/* Can pause asymetrically     */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_1000HALF	0x0800	/* Can do SGMII 1000mbps half-duplex */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_1000FULL	0x1800	/* Can do SGMII 1000mbps full-duplex */
> >  #define LPA_RESV		0x1000	/* Unused...                   */
> >  #define LPA_RFAULT		0x2000	/* Link partner faulted        */
> >  #define LPA_LPACK		0x4000	/* Link partner acked us       */
> >  #define LPA_NPAGE		0x8000	/* Next page bit               */
> > +#define LPA_SGMII_LINK		0x8000	/* Link partner has link       */
> 
> I wonder whether mixing these definitions together is really such a
> good idea, or whether separately grouping them would be better.

I think i prefer a seperate grouping.

  Andrew